Joseph Carter wrote: [ ... ]
> Here's where I am headed (another outline): > > 1. This license applies if you distribute Qt. > 2. You may distribute unmodified copies. > 3. You may distribute modified copies if: > a. Mods don't change the Copyright notices > b. Your mods are distinguishable from the original source. Pretty > much defining this the way the GPL does along with Troll Tech's > preferences for mods as patches when reaonable. > c. Mods must be available as free software. A note that the Trolls > can't use stuff they can't relicense, some nice easy way to let > them relicense your code in exchange for making sure there is > always a free software version of Qt. The only point I would take issue with is this one. I don't see why the license can't say, if Qt does not have a world-wide, royalty-free license to redistribute the mods under its two (or more -- more might be needed later b/c of the various open source licenses proliferating these days) licenses, you can't distribute them along with Qt source code; and Qt would agree to keep the two (or more) edititons in sync so they can't cherry-pick mods. Anything else is unfair to TT, and I can't see how anyone can complain about this. > 4. You may distribute binaries if: > a. You include the license > b. People can get the source > 5. You may use Qt with anything legally developed > 6. You may develop Qt-using software if: > a. People can get the source code > b. Free redistribution is allowed > > 3(c) in my changes (it was 3(c) to start, then it was 3(b) after I > changed it, now I change it back---hey people, check it out! Musical > license clauses! <g>) needs some real effort I think. It's really the > hard part. It's easy to get people to follow it, I just have to write > it. => If you've got any suggestions I wouldn't mind hearing them. > > Also, the question as to whether 5 needs to be in there at all has come > up, but I think it does need to be there. I think it does, the actual > language is and would remain: > > 5. You may use the original or modified versions of the Software to > compile, link and run application programs legally developed by you or > by others. Well, it's not just legally *developed*, it also must be legally *distributed*, no? Someone can develop using Qt Free Edition legally, but then if they distribute under a restricted license they have still legally developed but illegally (in violation of QPL) distributed. But in the end, this is a pointless provision, no way TT will sue someone for *using* a Qt library b/c someone distributed it in violation of Qt licenses (since use is not limited by Qt license you could run afoul of 5 only if someone up the chain did something wrong). Also, a user would probably not know whether or not the program was "legally developed", how is someone to know this? Why not stick to distribution restrictions? [ ... ] Regards, Andreas Pour [EMAIL PROTECTED]
